Science Memes

15517 readers

2708 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
Keep it rooted (on topic).
No spam.
Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

[email protected]

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

fossilesque

279

vibes-based astrophysics (mander.xyz)

submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

37 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Caption: an interview dialogue

Are dark matter models unsuited to explain observations? [the "dark matter models" and "to explain observations" parts are poorly edited onto the image, overlaying the original text]
In my view, they are unsuited.
Why?
That's my opinion, don't ask me why.

End of caption

Dark matter is the mainstream among physicists, but internet commentators keep saying it can't be right because it "feels off".

Of course, skepticism is good for science! You just need to justify it more than saying the mainstream "feels off".

For people who prefer alternative explanations over dark matter for non-vibe-based reasons, I would love to hear your thoughts! Leave a comment!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 20 points 5 months ago (7 children)

MOND is a wonderful way to explain rotation curves but since then with new observations (bullet cluster, gravitational lensing, ...) MOND doesn't really hold up.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (4 children)

You might consider reading Accelerated Structure Formation: The Early Emergence of Massive Galaxies and Clusters of Galaxies. The paper is absolutely wonderful. The main thesis of the paper is, "Wow, the James Webb Telescope sure has been finding some remarkably mature galaxies for the early universe. Maybe we should consider the possibility that the models we use to predict galaxy formation, specifically lambda CDM, are incorrect and Non-Physical."

The author states the difficulty in the conclusion:

Despite the predictive successes of MOND, we do not yet know how to construct a cosmology based on it. In contrast, ΛCDM provides a good fit to a wide range of cosmological observables but does not provide a satisfactory explanation of the many phenomena that were predicted by MOND, nor is it clear that it can do so. We find ourselves caught between two very different theories that seem irreconcilable despite applying to closely related yet incommensurate lines of evidence.

The complaints about the early maturation of galaxies seen by the JWST was widely reported. My favorite line from that article:

“Maybe in the early universe, galaxies were better at turning gas into stars,” Chworowsky said.

Sure, it's not that our theories of cosmology are incorrect; things like star formation were just different back in the early universe. I guess you just had to be there.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I'm still far from convinced about MOND. But I guess now I'm less confident in lambda CDM too -_-

I'm inclined to believe it's one or many of the potential explanations in your second link. But even then, those explanations are mostly postdictions so they hold less weight.